Was Ron Paul Right All Along?

[editec]

Trouble with R Paul is he came across as being too far out of step; the jump to where he wanted the country to go seemed too large - at the time. He is going to have trouble shedding the image of a wacko.

Damned right he will.

ESPECIALLY since the more popular he gets the more people who will be hired to assassinate his character.

We do not live in a world where those with fame who strike at the belly of the beast get away without their reputations being targeted by professional character assassins.

I have no doubt the Ron Paul character assassination industry is going full throttle right now.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

This thread reveals much of what I think went wrong with the RP campaign. And I am not saying this was entirely of his own making. He should have had crisp, unambiguous messages that last. Would imagine he thinks he did that and he may have it on his web site. But that was not the impression I had when listening to him.

For example, and it is not perfect by any means, a while back someone here asked me what my political persuasion was. I answered it here but more fully on my blog: Indiana Oracle Political Platform for the Future. Personally I would love for someone in the public eye to be proposing in such a way. RP had a lot of good ideas.

 

[Iriemon]

Paul wasn't saying tariffs were a good idea, he was just mentioning that that's one way the government got their revenue before the income tax. He supports free trade.

Also, I wouldn't brag about how we're so powerful we've become the policemen of the world, it's nothing to be proud of.

Good on no tariffs. But then where do revenues come from.

Being the policeman may or may not be something to be proud of depending upon how you conduct yourself, but I was just listing it as an accomplishment off the top of my head.

There are more taxes than simply income tax, and drastically cutting spending would be a part of Ron Paul's policy as well.

Thanks but that's why I asked: But then where do revenues come from?

 

[Iriemon]

You're dead on Iremon. A lot of these Paul supporters don't get that with the system he advocates, you get to work yourself into the grave. A tiny few will remain among the wealthy but their would be a mass of poverty. People who think they are wealthy now, would quickly find themselves with a shovel in their hand.

Now, it's not that I don't think that Pauls ideas have merit. They do. But I don't think people understand what it would mean for them. Your wealth would be gone. You would have to produce or die. No more free rides. It would actually be cool to expose just who is getting a free ride. I'll give you a hint: the welfare folks aren't a drop in the bucket. If you make a living that is connected to finance, well, welcome to the poor house. No more monopoly money. No more fractional reserve policy. No more pay check for you.

Be a good time to invest in cardboard box. I understand they are popular with the homeless. Also dark tint on your car windows so you don't have to look and the folks living under the freeway as you drive by.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Good on no tariffs. But then where do revenues come from.

Being the policeman may or may not be something to be proud of depending upon how you conduct yourself, but I was just listing it as an accomplishment off the top of my head.

There are more taxes than simply income tax, and drastically cutting spending would be a part of Ron Paul's policy as well.

Thanks but that's why I asked: But then where do revenues come from?

Since the government can only get it's revenue from taxation of one form or another, we can pretty much assume that they'd get their revenue from taxation.

 

[eots]

You're dead on Iremon. A lot of these Paul supporters don't get that with the system he advocates, you get to work yourself into the grave. A tiny few will remain among the wealthy but their would be a mass of poverty. People who think they are wealthy now, would quickly find themselves with a shovel in their hand.

Now, it's not that I don't think that Pauls ideas have merit. They do. But I don't think people understand what it would mean for them. Your wealth would be gone. You would have to produce or die. No more free rides. It would actually be cool to expose just who is getting a free ride. I'll give you a hint: the welfare folks aren't a drop in the bucket. If you make a living that is connected to finance, well, welcome to the poor house. No more monopoly money. No more fractional reserve policy. No more pay check for you.

utter nonsense...

 

[Iriemon]

There are more taxes than simply income tax, and drastically cutting spending would be a part of Ron Paul's policy as well.

Thanks but that's why I asked: But then where do revenues come from?

Since the government can only get it's revenue from taxation of one form or another, we can pretty much assume that they'd get their revenue from taxation.

Well Kevin, thanks for that helpful and enlightening observation. I never would have guessed that.

But your helpful observation does raise another question, if you hadn't already anticipated it I'll spell it out for you: Which forms of taxation if income taxes and tariffs are eliminated?

 

[eots]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQsMuNEddkQ&feature=related[/ame]

 

[Paulie]

Trouble with R Paul is he came across as being too far out of step; the jump to where he wanted the country to go seemed too large - at the time. He is going to have trouble shedding the image of a wacko.

Yeah, maybe back then people weren't quite ready for that kind of "jump".

Funny how things can change so drastically in such a short time.

This country needed that kind of "jump" decades ago.

 

[Peejay]

Trouble with R Paul is he came across as being too far out of step; the jump to where he wanted the country to go seemed too large - at the time. He is going to have trouble shedding the image of a wacko.

Yeah, maybe back then people weren't quite ready for that kind of "jump".

Funny how things can change so drastically in such a short time.

This country needed that kind of "jump" decades ago.

Which is why I say Paul missed his own boat. Not enough gold or silver to represent the "ghost" wealth that we have created. That would disappear. And it would disappear out of some powerful pockets. Too late now. When the crash comes and the paper isn't worth jack, it'll happen all by itself. The market will win. Sooner or later.

 

[FactFinder]

Was Ron Paul Right All Along?
Yep!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Thanks but that's why I asked: But then where do revenues come from?

Since the government can only get it's revenue from taxation of one form or another, we can pretty much assume that they'd get their revenue from taxation.

Well Kevin, thanks for that helpful and enlightening observation. I never would have guessed that.

But your helpful observation does raise another question, if you hadn't already anticipated it I'll spell it out for you: Which forms of taxation if income taxes and tariffs are eliminated?

Let me spell it out for you: I'm not going to go through every tax the government uses to get revenue. The income tax accounts for around 30 - 40% of the federal government's revenue, and they can go without that to do their constitutional duties.

 

[FactFinder]

Since the government can only get it's revenue from taxation of one form or another, we can pretty much assume that they'd get their revenue from taxation.

Well Kevin, thanks for that helpful and enlightening observation. I never would have guessed that.

But your helpful observation does raise another question, if you hadn't already anticipated it I'll spell it out for you: Which forms of taxation if income taxes and tariffs are eliminated?

Let me spell it out for you: I'm not going to go through every tax the government uses to get revenue. The income tax accounts for around 30 - 40% of the federal government's revenue, and they can go without that to do their constitutional duties.

and....why does the government need all this revenue?????

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well Kevin, thanks for that helpful and enlightening observation. I never would have guessed that.

But your helpful observation does raise another question, if you hadn't already anticipated it I'll spell it out for you: Which forms of taxation if income taxes and tariffs are eliminated?

Let me spell it out for you: I'm not going to go through every tax the government uses to get revenue. The income tax accounts for around 30 - 40% of the federal government's revenue, and they can go without that to do their constitutional duties.

and....why does the government need all this revenue?????

To pay for their ever increasing budget, bailouts, and stimulus packages.

 

[FactFinder]

Let me spell it out for you: I'm not going to go through every tax the government uses to get revenue. The income tax accounts for around 30 - 40% of the federal government's revenue, and they can go without that to do their constitutional duties.

and....why does the government need all this revenue?????

To pay for their ever increasing budget, bailouts, and stimulus packages.

Just say no...

 

[Peejay]

You're dead on Iremon. A lot of these Paul supporters don't get that with the system he advocates, you get to work yourself into the grave. A tiny few will remain among the wealthy but their would be a mass of poverty. People who think they are wealthy now, would quickly find themselves with a shovel in their hand.

Now, it's not that I don't think that Pauls ideas have merit. They do. But I don't think people understand what it would mean for them. Your wealth would be gone. You would have to produce or die. No more free rides. It would actually be cool to expose just who is getting a free ride. I'll give you a hint: the welfare folks aren't a drop in the bucket. If you make a living that is connected to finance, well, welcome to the poor house. No more monopoly money. No more fractional reserve policy. No more pay check for you.

utter nonsense...

No, that's the reality of equating money to gold or product even, instead of confidence. If we actually had to produce for our money, our national wealth would be cut to a fraction. All at once or over time, either way, if you take away the money created by the fractional system, only those that have product will have money. The service sector, especially the huge US fininacial industry would turn to dust. With real money, you don't get to create wealth with manipulation of interest and money supply. You have to represent product to get money. Any industry that is not product based would suffer greatly. Especially finance.

I mean, if you're ready to get back to the real world of producing, I'm with you. Just understand that you're going to have to work for every dime. No more free rides.

 

[ItsFairmont]

Trouble with R Paul is he came across as being too far out of step; the jump to where he wanted the country to go seemed too large - at the time. He is going to have trouble shedding the image of a wacko.

He was given that image by the rightwing media, the one run by the neocons from the PNAC and other nutjob factories.

 

[FactFinder]

Trouble with R Paul is he came across as being too far out of step; the jump to where he wanted the country to go seemed too large - at the time. He is going to have trouble shedding the image of a wacko.

He was given that image by the rightwing media, the one run by the neocons from the PNAC and other nutjob factories.

Both sides tried to make him out as a nut job. He is a threat to the staus quo. He tells it like it is. It is curently a failure as long as both sides are catering to Wall St.

 

[Peejay]

Trouble with R Paul is he came across as being too far out of step; the jump to where he wanted the country to go seemed too large - at the time. He is going to have trouble shedding the image of a wacko.

He was given that image by the rightwing media, the one run by the neocons from the PNAC and other nutjob factories.

Well.....if whackjob newsletters from fringe groups are "the media".

People's supporters often define the candidates. Not that all Paul supporters were whackos but he attracted wingnuts like flies on shit.

 

[Iriemon]

Since the government can only get it's revenue from taxation of one form or another, we can pretty much assume that they'd get their revenue from taxation.

Well Kevin, thanks for that helpful and enlightening observation. I never would have guessed that.

But your helpful observation does raise another question, if you hadn't already anticipated it I'll spell it out for you: Which forms of taxation if income taxes and tariffs are eliminated?

Let me spell it out for you: I'm not going to go through every tax the government uses to get revenue. The income tax accounts for around 30 - 40% of the federal government's revenue, and they can go without that to do their constitutional duties.

So Paul's plan is to eliminate the income tax the wealthy pay, but keep the regressive SS tax the working poorer pay.

I can see why rich folks would love Paul. Leona Helmsley's fantasy come true.

And I can see why others call him a whacko.